RAM PRASAD Vs. RUKMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the order dated 28. 4. 1995 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 2 Nagaur in Civil Suit Not 10/94 rejecting the application filed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for the amendment of the written statement.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that non-petitioner Rukma Devi and Hukma Ram filed suit for declaration and possession of the property situated in Village Rol against petitioner Ram Prasad and two others stating that he had purchased the suit property from Chandulal and that Ram Prakash is his tenant. THE suit was resisted by the petitioner-defendant Ram Prasad on the ground that he was not the tenant plaintiffs and that Chandulal had no authority to sell whole of the property as he was not the sole owner. On these pleadings, as many as 12 issues were framed. After 6 witnesses of plaintiffs were examined, the defendant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC praying for amendment in the written statement that he had purchased the half of the property from Bansilal who was co-owner of the property in the year 1986 i. e. after the filing of the suit and, therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled to decree. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs on the ground that since suit was pending against the disputed property it could not be sold and that Bansilal did not have any right in the property. It was further pleaded that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit as also the nature of the cause of action. THE learned trial Judge dismissed the defendant's application. Hence, this revision.